Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Pro 2600 vs imac 2600

F

fsron

macrumors member
Original poster
So I’m just curious how the GPU’s for the current imac and the standard video card in the Mac Pro compare. Are they roughly the same thing?
 
Well the iMac currently has two different cards:

-2400 xt

-2600 pro


The Mac Pro's 2600 xt is roughly the same as the 2600 pro, the GPU clock and memory speeds are different but not THAT different. Don't get the 2400 xt if you plan on doing any gaming. It cuts down on the number of shader units and games will suffer.

If you're not doing any gaming, all three cards are about the same in terms of picture quality and 2D graphics.
 
Actually, I’m going to purchase a Mac Pro. I’m just trying to justify or not the 8800gt. I have messed around with an imac and the performance seemed adequate. I already have a pretty good screen and with the lack of expandability in the imac is probably not where I’m going.

The other day at the Apple store I was playing around with two Mac Pros, one was a 3.2 with the 8800GT and the other was a 2.8 with the 2600. Everything else was the same. The 3.2 was very noticeably quicker and more so than the 15% CPU speed increase would suggest. Could the difference in the GPU be adding to what seemed just like a snapper computer or was that just my imagination?
 
Get the 8800gt! You will regret not getting one later and have to pay more in the long run. I don't think going from 2.8 to 3.2 is justifiable... but it depends on what you are going to use the Mac Pro for.

What applications are you wanting to use?


Just for a point of reference, I went from a 7300 to a 1900xt and noticed a significant difference in how well the desktop responded.
 
matt321 said:
Well the iMac currently has two different cards:

-2400 xt

-2600 pro


The Mac Pro's 2600 xt is roughly the same as the 2600 pro, the GPU clock and memory speeds are different but not THAT different. Don't get the 2400 xt if you plan on doing any gaming. It cuts down on the number of shader units and games will suffer.

If you're not doing any gaming, all three cards are about the same in terms of picture quality and 2D graphics.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, I give a thorough explanation here: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4934713/
 
fsron said:
Actually, I’m going to purchase a Mac Pro. I’m just trying to justify or not the 8800gt. I have messed around with an imac and the performance seemed adequate. I already have a pretty good screen and with the lack of expandability in the imac is probably not where I’m going.

The other day at the Apple store I was playing around with two Mac Pros, one was a 3.2 with the 8800GT and the other was a 2.8 with the 2600. Everything else was the same. The 3.2 was very noticeably quicker and more so than the 15% CPU speed increase would suggest. Could the difference in the GPU be adding to what seemed just like a snapper computer or was that just my imagination?
Click to expand...

not quite sure how it could really be 'snappier' if neither machine was being heavily taxed? were they the same in all other respects (ie. ram, was the 3.2 using RAID? etc)
 
Thanks for the help. You are probably correct in going for the 8800, it just doesn't cost that much more. Although I think the 2600 would be fine, I would always wonder how much better the 8800 would be. Doing it up front will be cheaper than doing it later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back